7 

y l 



[RGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM 



EVIDENCE 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON" CLAIMS 

OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON SENATE BILL 5252, SIXTIETH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 
TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN MONEYS 
ADVANCED BY THE STATES OF VIRGINIA AND MARY- 
LAND TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO BE 
APPLIED TOWARD ERECTING PUBLIC BUILD- 
INGS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



DECEMBER 16, 1908 



STATEMENTS OF 

HON. CHARLES C. CARLIN 

A Member from the State of Virginia 

AND 

HON. JOHN W. DANIEL 

A Senator from the State of Virginia 

AND 

HON. 1SID0R RAYNER 

A Senator from the State of Maryland 



COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, SIXTIETH CONGRESS 
MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE 



JAMES M. MILLER 
CHARLES Q. TIRRELL, MASS. 
J( iSKIMI HOWELL, UTAH 
WILLIAM H. GRAHAM, PA. 
GEORGE E. WALDO, N. Y. 
GRANT E. MOUSER, oiiio. 
GEORGE E. LILLEY, CONN. 

:i.i:s A. LINDBERGH, MINN. 
WILLIS C. HAWLEY, OREG. 
A. P. MYERS, Clerk 



KANS., Chairman 
HENRY M. GOLDFOGLE, N. Y. 
CLAUDE KITCHIN, N. C. 
EZEKIEL S. CANDLER, Jr., MISS. 
DORSEY W. SHACKLEFORD, MO. 
JAMES (>. PATTERSON, S. C. 
JOHN A. M. ADAIR, [ND. 
ELMER I.. PULTON, OK LA. 

JOHN W. GARDNER, Asst. Clerk 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1909 



Ms\ 



[S. 5252, Sixtieth Congress, Qrsl session.] 

\N A.CT To provide for the payment of certain moneys advanced by the States of Vir- 
ginia and Maryland to the United States Governmenl to be applied toward erecting 
public buildings Cor the Federal Governmenl in the Districl of Columbia. 

Be it enacted by the Seno.tt and House of Representatives of the United 

States of Auk lied in Congress assembled, Thai the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the treasurer of the Mount Vernon 
Avenue Association, a corporation chartered and existing under the laws of 
the State of Virginia, the said Mount Vernon Avenue Association being the 
assignee of the State of Virginia under the provisions of a joint resolution of 
the general assembly of the said State of Virginia, approved on the 5th day 
of March, 1888, the sum of $120,000, being the sum advanced by the State of 
Virginia to the United States under the provisions of an act passed by the 
general assembly of the State of Virginia on the 27th day of December, 1790, 
to be used toward erecting public buildings in the District of Columbia for the 
use of the Federal Government. And the payment of the said sum of $120,000 
to the treasurer of the Mount Vernon Avenue Association shall be in 
full satisfaction and payment of any and all debts, claims, or demands on the 
part of the State of Virginia or of her assignee, the Mount Vernon Avenue 
Association aforesaid, growing out of any money or moneys advanced, loaned, 
or paid out to the United States by the State of Virginia by virtue of the pro- 
visions of the said act passed by the general assembly of Virginia on the 27th 
day of December, 1790, or under the provisions of any other law, state or 
national, for the purpose of aiding in the erection of public buildings for the 
Federal Government in the District of Columbia. 

Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized 
and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the State of Maryland, the sum of $72,000, being the sum advanced 
by the State of Maryland to the United States under the provisions of a joint 
resolution passed by the general assembly of the State of Maryland on the 19th 
day of December, 1791, to be used toward erecting public buildings in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia for the use of the Federal Government. And the payment 
of the said sum of $72,000 to the State of Maryland shall be in full satisfaction 
and payment of any and all debts, claims, or demands on the part of the State 
of Maryland growing out of any money or moneys advanced, loaned, or paid 
out to the United States by the State of Maryland by virtue of the provisions 
of the said joint resolution passed by the general assembly of Maryland on the 
19th day of December, 1791, or under the provisions of any other law, state 
or national, for the purpose of aiding in the erection of public buildings 
for the Federal Government in the District of Columbia. 

Sec. 3. That this act shall be in force from the date of its passage. 

-I 

Q 1909 ' 
D. or D»j 






VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 



House or Representatives, 

Committee on Claims, 
Washington, D. C, December 16, 1908. 
The committee met at 10.35 o'clock a. m., Hon. James M. Miller 
(chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. The first matter coming up this morning is the 
bill introduced by Mr. Carlin, in which the State of Virginia seems 
to have some interest, and we will take that matter up now. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES C. CARLIN, A MEMBER FROM THE 
STATE OF VIRGINIA. 

Mr. Carlin. Mr. Chairman, at the time I asked the committee to 
hear this bill, I was not sure that Senator Daniel could be present. 
I find that he is, and I shall leave him to explain the bill more fully 
to you, and give 3^011 in brief my ideas of the facts and reasons for 
this bill. 

There is a claim of the State of Virginia against the Federal Gov- 
ernment for money loaned in 1790, through and upon the request of 
the then President of the United States, Mr. Washington. The claim 
has been considered a dozen times by various committees of the 
House and of the Senate and has been reported upon or 10 times 
favorably by the committees of the House and of the Senate, as you 
will find upon page 3 of the present report of the Senate Committee 
upon that bill. It so happens that the committees have never man- 
aged to report at the same session of Congress; when the House 
would report favorably, the Senate did not report at all, and when 
the Senate reported the House did not, and the result has been that 
no action has been had upon the claim. 

The money was loaned to the Government for the building of the 
public buildings in the city of Washington, and this money was 
actually expended, as the records will show, in and upon the present 
Capitol of the United States, the building which we now enjoy the 
use of. I was asked by the President of the United Stales why it 
was that Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe had not 
collected this money for Virginia. The answer was very plain ancl 
simple, viz, that at that time Virginia was better able to wait for the 
money than the United States was to pay the money. Strange as 
this may seem, it was not until 1836 that this country had any surplus 
in its Treasury, and the panic of 1837 carried all the funds we had 
then out of the Treasur} 7 of the country, and it was not until 1842 
that the United States could consider the payment of any of this 
debt. But in 1842 the demand was made for the payment of the 

3 



4 VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 

money by Maryland and Virginia, and the demand has been made 
persistently and consistently ever since. 

There has never been a committee of this House or of the Senate 
that has ever denied the correctness and jus! ice of the claim. It is 
admitted in every report of both branches of Congress, and yet the 
strange condition exists that Virginia lias never been able to collect 
the money. Virginia finally, thinking that the Government would 
listen, perhaps, to some more patriotic expenditure of the money 
than the mere payment of a debt, assigned this claim to the Mount 
Vernon Avenue Association, which is composed of citizens of the 
highest standing and character of the State of Virginia, with the 
understanding that they should, when the money is received by them. 
build a memorial highway from Washington to the tomb of George 
Washington at Mount Vernon, a distance of 14 miles. I do not 
know that that will appeal to you, gentlemen, as any stronger reason 
for the payment of the claim than the mere fact that the Government 
owes the money and ought to pay it. 

The question has been asked a great number of times whether Vir- 
ginia and Maryland intended this money as a loan, or whether they 
intended it as a gift. All of the commit lees that have investigated 
the condition of affairs have reported that it was not a gift, but an 
advance. 

'Sir. Tirrell. Is there any document showing any receipt from the 
Government ( 

Mr. Carlix. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Tirrell. Have yon a copy of that \ 

Mr. Carlin. Yes; it is in the report. You will find on one of the 
pages of this report, where the President himself. Mr. Washington, 
inquired the method and the manner of settling this account between 
Maryland and Virginia, because he said in that report that the money 
had not been all expended for the purpose for which they had bor- 
rowed it. 

The Chairman. What page is that? 

Mr. Carlin. Page 4. 

Mr. Tirrell. The general assembly of Virginia passed an act for 
the purpose of giving money to the Government, 1 suppose: that is 
not disputed. Now, I want the receipt of the Government. 

Mr. Carlin. That will all appear in these reports. On page 8 of 
this report you will find, in a letter addressed to the Commissioners 
of the Federal District, under date of August -1\\ WX\. three years 
after the money had been borrowed, President Washington asked: 

In what manner would it lie proper to state the account with the States of 
Virginia and Maryland, they having advanced money which has not been ex- 
pended on the objects for which it was appropriated? 

In other words, they did not. as the President stated there, expend 
the money altogether for the purpose for which it hafl been appro- 
priated, and he was at a Loss to understand how the account should 
he stated between the two. There is absolutely no question but that 
Virginia paid the money. 

Mr. Shackleford. The suggestion come- to my mind from reading 
this page I: Out West, when we want a factory located in a town, 
or a county seat, or a university moved from one place to another, we 
propose if they will locate it in a certain locality, where we will be 
benefited by it, to make some advance to them for the purpose of in- 



VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 

during the location of that particular institution in our midst, believ- 
ing that by so doing, in advancing that amount of money, we will get 
it back in the advanced value of property, and the question has sug- 
gested itself to me, from reading page 4, that possibly Maryland and 
Virginia made these advances in order to secure the location of the 
capital and the erection of these buildings here because of the mate- 
rial benefit it would confer upon them. 

Mr. Carlin. I will answer that. Virginia wanted the capital, not 
at Washington, but she wanted the capital at Williamsburg, and it 
made an offer to give a large amount of money if the Government 
would locate the capital there. But it was not located there. After 
the refusal to accept that proposition, Virginia did say she would 
advance a certain amount of money if the capital Avere located on the 
Potomac, but in that instance it was an advance. In the other in- 
stance, had it been located where she wanted it, it would have been 
a gift. So there is no question but that that was the only considera- 
tion which induced Virginia to make this loan to the Government, to 
be paid in quarterly payments. The method of the payment will be 
found in the report. And I think that had a large influence with 
both Maryland and Virginia in securing the loan, the fact that the 
capital was to be located there. You will recall the fact that both 
Virginia and Maryland gave 10 miles square of their territory for 
the District of Columbia, and that was considered an abundant gift 
from each of those States for the location of the capital. The money 
inducement for the loan, I think, was largely the present location, 
but the money was never intended as a gift to locate it on the banks 
of the Potomac, because Virginia proffered and was willing to make 
a gift if the capital was located at Williamsburg, all of which appears 
in the printed report which you have before you. 

There have been controversies between the two Houses as to what 
the word " advance " means. One minority report, and the only one 
that has ever been made by any committee, did state that the word 
" advance " in the act should be construed to mean a gift and not a 
loan. But that act was drawn by John Marshall, who knew the legal 
meaning of the word "advance" as well as any man could possibly 
have known the legal meaning of any word, and the decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, which is also referred to in the 
papers filed with the committee, shows that the word "advance" 
means a loan, and not a gift. So that has never been questioned but 
by one committee, either of the House or of the Senate, and yet there 
have been a dozen reports upon this claim. The fact is there is 
no excuse for the United States Government refusing longer to pay 
this claim. There is no man on earth who has ever been able to 
present a single argument against its payment. The fact is that 
these two sovereign States, Maryland and Virginia, have simply been 
juggled with, by accident in most cases and sometimes possibly by 
design — but if by design it was before I came upon the arena of the 
earth, and I only know that as a matter of reading the report which 
I have before me. Maryland is exactly in the same boat, with a claim 
of less amount. Virginia only agreed to advance this money in the 
event that Maryland would give an advance of $75,000. The United 
States Government at that time wanted about $200,000, and Virginia 
and Maryland, at that time being the best able of all the colonies to 



6 VIRGINIA AND MABYLAND CLAIM. 

make the loan, made it. And especially was it an extra inducement 
to Virginia, as lias been Mated, that at thai time her own citizen, the 
President of the United States, was asking that the loan he made. 

Mr. Mouser. When was the first claim made for the payment of 
this claim '. 

Mr. ('aim. i\. Upon the firsi appearance of a surplus in the United 
States Treasury; in other words, the firsi lime it appeared that the 
Government had any money. Maryland made the claim. 

The Chairman, hi L842? 

Mr. Carlin. In L842. In L836 a surplus did appear for a few 
hours, bu1 it soon disappeared by reason of the panic which followed 
it. But the two States promptly made this demand as soon as the 
Treasury of the United States" gave any evidences of ability to 
respond. 

Mr. Moi ski;. Was there a panic following 1842? 

Mr. Carlin. I said L837. It followed L836. 

Now. when you come to analyze this situation, Virginia to-day 
stands in the same patriotic position that she did when she made this 
loan. She does not ask that this money he returned to her treasury, 
but that it is to be used for a patriotic purpose, namely, the building 
of a memorial highway from Washington to Mount Vernon. 

The Chairman. Maryland does ask to have this returned? 

Mr. Carlin. Yes. Senator Rayner is present, and will tell the 
committee what she desires to do with it. I think she is entitled to 
have it returned if she desires to use it in that way. Virginia de- 
sires to use it in a public spirit movement, in a memorial way, as it 
is stated. 

Now. gentlemen, these are briefly all the facts there are in this 
case. The greal wonder is that this Government has been willing 
to sit by so long and decline to repay this money. The matter was 
perhaps best stated by Senator Seward, of New York, in a paragraph 
which I will read, which answers all of the contentions of all parties 
with respect to this claim, particularly with respect to the contention 
that this money was an advance and not a loan, and I will read it to 
you in conclusion of my remarks. 

Said Senator Seward: 

Mr. President, the State of Virginia, beyond all doubt, contributed to the 

erecti I tins Capitol, anil of these public edifices which we now use for the 

Government of the United States, the sum here specified. She either advancd 
that money as a loan, to lie repaid at some future time, or she gave it to the 
Government of the United states, ir this money was advanced as a loan, the 
advance created a debt, which it is now the duty of the Government to' dis- 
charge, it. however, the money was contributed by way of gifl or donation to 
the Government of the United states. I do not see that it materially alters the 
case. In the one ease there would he an obligation already existing, a debt 
already to he paid, for money which has been borrowed. In the other case there 
is an advance, which is the has : s of a moral obligation, which the Government 
may at any time recognize and assume, and that creates the debt. =;; ::: * 
This moral obligation strikes in.' as peculiarly appealing to the sense of honor 
of the Government of the United States. We are here occupying an edifice 
which was in pan hnilt tor us by the state of Virginia. She is comparatively 
P° or ; we are only too rich. I think it does not comport with the pride anil 
dignity of the United states thai Congress and the executive departments 

should occupy halls for which they are indebted in whole or in pari to the n- 

erosity of the States. * * * I am for discharging this obligation and secur- 
es ' -selves the righl to feel that this Governmenl owes nothing hut 

gratitude to these States. 



VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 7 

Gentlemen, that paragraph from Senator Seward states this case, 
and with this brief statement of the facts I will now ask the com- 
mittee to hear the patron of this bill, the Senator from Virginia. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL, A SENATOR FROM THE 
STATE OF VIRGINIA. 

Mr. Daniel. Is it the pleasure of the committee to hear me a few 
minutes? The basis of this measure, sirs, lies in a small compass. 
The meaning- of the word " advance " is as well settled as any legal 
term we have to deal with, and it is plain in the statement set forth 
in this report, as. to the basis of this advance to the Government, 
that it was used by an able lawyer, Chief Justice Marshall, who was 
then in the Virginia legislature, and who drew the measure and used 
it there with a view to its meaning. The Government was without 
funds, and it is with pride I remember that in all stages of the rela- 
tions of Virginia with this Government the State of Virginia has 
acted on the liberal and patriotic side, and has never stickled as 
to any right of her own. or as to what posture she might occupy as 
to it, seeking at all times to do the patriotic, if not the generous, 
thing. The State of Virginia, when the civil Avar came on, had a 
fund of a hundred thousand dollars or more in the Treasury from 
the distribution of the public lands. She had never taken it because 
she did not believe in it. and she had always acted in all public mat- 
ters- according to her convictions. The moment that the State of 
West Virginia was organized by a counter revolution in the woods 
in West Virginia a messenger was sent post haste to collect the 
money. The State of Virginia has never been either exacting toward 
the Government nor prudent with respect to herself as to any claim 
against this Government whatsoever. 

This is a legal claim. It could be recovered in any court that ad- 
ministers the common law. in an action of assumpsit, and is just as 
plain as any. count for money had and received. It is very true that 
sometimes, by one public man or another, it has been called a loan. 
But look at the Century Dictionary, look at any legal dictionary, 
look at any well-established dictionary of the English language, and 
you see the meaning of the word " advance." It is a forwarding of 
money with the expectation and underlying thought of reimburse- 
ment. There is no doubt the money was received; there is no doubt 
it was expended upon the public buildings of this country: it is in 
hand to-day by the United States and used. All presumptions of law 
applying to the advance of money — the expectation of a return — 
from a small store account, in which a man goes in and takes up a 
box of matches or orders so many yards of calico, and goes out with 
the common understanding and expectation that he will pay for those 
goods which he gets and uses for his own benefit, to the largest trans- 
action of business apply to this transaction. Now, that is this case. 

A man may pick up the observation of some public man here and 
there, calling it a grant, or a loan, or calling it whatnot; but these 
are the facts, and the facts musl determine the relative rights of 
parties, and not a speculative or casual sentence from one public 
person to another. They had no part in the procedure. They had 
nothing to do with the res gestae. They know no more than anybody 
else may know about it; and there is a fact which speaks for itself, 



8 VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 

that, using a Lega] term which means an expectation of reimburse- 
ment, the State of Virginia and the State of Maryland sent that 
money to this Government, which used it with great advantage to 
Ltsejf. The situation in thi.-> nation, of the fixity of the capital, and 
the obtaining of the land by George Washington, by the advancing 
of $192,000 by Virginia and Maryland, realized to the Government 
much more than the money advanced, which went into the Treasury 
and was used by this Government. In the Forty-ninth Congress Mr. 
Seward, the then Senator from New York, spoke in the language re- 
specting this claim which my friend the Representative of the Eighth 
District has uttered. There were other distinguished Senators who 
spoke, on the subject. One was Senator Wade, of Ohio, and another 
was Senator Fish, of New York. Mr. Wade said : 

The language connected with the original grant, which is sometimes called a 
"gift," sometimes a "donation," sometimes an "advance," sometimes one thing 
and sometimes another, would see to imply that it was net then expected the 
money would lie repaid. 

That, perhaps, is the best suggestion yon can get from anybody that 
tries to argue that there is not an obligation upon the United States 
to return this money. 

All these considerations, however, did no1 satisfy me that we ought not repay 
the money. I care but little what the expectation was at that time. If these 
States, actuated by magnanimity, ami for the purpose of advancing the public 
good, gave us money to erect the public buildings at thai stage, when our Treas- 
ury was comparatively empty, ami when it was really an objed to have such a 
donation, I would repay them. 

Until I860 the State of Virginia never had any embarrassment in 
its treasury or public fund.-. It was poor to what it was immediately 
afterwards. It borrowed $20,000,000 for public nses. for building 
highways and railroads extending out into West Virginia, and it had 
money in hand. It refused to take the money lying in the Treasury 
on the distribution of the public lands. That was the attitude of this 
State and that was the attitude of this Government. 

Now, nobody had ever stated any argument which would be re- 
spected by a chancellor in equity or by a judge of the common law, 
in a county, circuit, or other court, that the term "advance" does 
imply and import an expectation of reimbursement. I have looked 
at the dictionaries, but there is no use in going through their defini- 
tions. That is well known. 

Now, this is over a hundred years that the Government has 

Mr. Kitciiin. But this ran for forty years of its life 

Mr. Daniel. When a man gets rich he is glad to forget poverty, 
but the Government must put itself in the attitude in which it was — 
very much embarrassed, very much troubled, with a great, rich State 
right on its borders that wanted to and did help it as generously as 
any State ever did help the nation. The reason we are getting partic- 
ular about the thing is because we are getting to understand and ap- 
preciate and value the principles of economy. We have had forty 
years to get our debts settled and to get a fixed modus vivendi. I am 
not complaining about that. We had our part in bringing it about; I 
am not trying to dodge it : but we have stood up to it both pecuniarily 
and morally, and with the instincts which 1 need not explain to any 
gentleman who sits upon this committee, for I see no one here who has 
not exactly (he same instinct, both about his race and about his char- 



VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 9 

acter. We are all alike in respect to that, and I think we are to be 
congratulated down in Virginia that to-day we have sunshine instead 
of shadow, and peace instead of strife, and a treasury that is paying 
its obligations as promptly and punctiliously as is the Treasury of 
the United States. But Ave have no money to give away. It has 
been by the greatesl hardship and the closest .economy and the gath- 
ering of all the money that we could lay our hands on properly that 
we have effected this great result. 

Now, I ask you not to put us off to come back to some other Con- 
gress. These old things ought to be wound up. I have striven here 
for twenty years to get this hill through. Some one says he calls it a 
gift. Now, let anybody try to write out an argument that it was a 
gift. Virginia does not care very much whether you call it a gift or a 
loan. She has always acted toward this Government on the principle 
of noblesse oblige. It ought to be appreciated, and ought not to be 
forgotten, because the Government has gotten rich and the State of 
Virginia comparatively poor. Those are changes which will happen 
in the conditions of all men and of all nations. We are doing the best 
Ave can and we expect this Government to do the best it can. We have 
appropriated this money not to our treasury, but Ave want to join in 
building an avenue from Washington to the tomb of Washington. 

Now, gentlemen, I might say a great deal more if you choose to go 
into the details of that matter, and I Avould be glad to answer any 
question which any one of you gentlemen may wish to ask. We have 
the documents which will prove all the positions which Ave state. 

I am very much obliged to you. Mr. Chairman, and the members 
of your committee, for your courtesy. 

The Chairman. At the time the legislature of the State of Vir- 
ginia passed this legislation providing for the advance of this money 
was there any discussion, so far as you know, from what the record 
sIioavs, as to what the appropriation was to be used for, aside from 
the language of the act itself? 

Mr. Daniel. I haA'e not got the original act with me. I examined 
it at one time. When the measure Avas pending in the legislature, as 
the old journal sIioavs. according to my present memory, Mr. Marshall 
arose and moved to insert the word " advance." Our legislative jour- 
nals do not sIioav the debates. But the word speaks for itself, and 
that is the point in this case that no man can get away from. If they 
had meant it they would haA T e said it. There is a bill in which they 
provided earlier that upon the establishment of the capital at Wil- 
liamsburg they meant to "give"' there, and they said ••give;" and 
when they meant advance, that Avas the exact, correct, technical term 
of Liav they should have used to do the thing which Ave contend they 
did. It is in expectation of the reimbursement of the funds, not then 
being in need, and Virginia waited upon a creditor who had reason to 
desire to be Avaited upon, and avIio Avas Availed upon until the time 
came when Virginia thought her claim should he put forward. It is 
a matter of honor. There is not a gentleman in the world who, if he 
had to act in a case of his own like this, would hesitate a minute to 
draAv his check. There is not a man who is worthy of the name of 
gentleman in this world that would take that money and use it with 
a term that imported the reimbursement of it, but that would be glad 
to reimburse it, and, a- Senator Sumner said upon one occasion, 
"Honesty and justice were always things to be subserved." This 



10 



VIRGINIA AMi MARYLAND CLAIM. 



claim is absolutely just. The use of this money was of great benefit in 

itself and of great benefit immediately in the lots sold here, which 
came as a result of it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ISIDOR RAYNER, SENATOR FROM THE 
STATE OF MARYLAND. 

Mr. Rayner. .Mi-. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there 
:llv one or two things in this record that have impressed themselves 
upon me very much, to which I would like to refer the committee. I 
staged this business twenty-odd years ago in Congress myself, and I 
think I offered a bill along in 1887 or 1888 in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, and so far as 1 have been here I have been persistently 
urging it ever since. 

1 never had any doubts about the proposition that this was an 
advance. I do not see how it is possible to read the contemporaneous 
history concerning the measure and come to any other conclusion. 
It was not a donation. I never agreed with the proposition that it 
was a donationvby the State of Virginia. If the State donated this 
money, then it is a matter within the bounty of Congre.4!; but if not, 
then it is within the legal equity jurisdiction. I have always looked 
upon it certainly as an advance. Then the question is. what do you 
mean by advance? I have always looked upon it, that if a man 
should come to me poor and ask me for an amount of money, and I 
would give it to him, I would not ask him to make me a note for it 
and state a date for the payment. But I would expect the repayment. 
And the environment of this measure, both in the Virginia and Mary- 
land legislatures, shows that these States expected repayment, I 
want to call your attention to one or two things. 

The Chairman. Suppose you were going to benefit greatly by the 
advance made to your friend, would you expect your friend' to 'come 
back years afterwards, if your property had been increased greatly 
in value by reason of that advance, and repay you? 

Mr. Rayner. But my property has not been increased in value. I 
do not admit that any property has been increased in value. What 
property has been increased in value? 

The Chairman. Don*! you think the property of the State of Vir- 
ginia has been largely increased in value ,by reason of the establish- 
ment of the capital of the United States here? 

Mr. Rayner. I might admit that; but if I loan a man money, and 
afterwards some fortuitous circumstance takes place that increases 

the value of my property 

The Chairman. But suppose you had advanced your money to 
some one who was going to start a manufactory that would give em- 
ployment to a large number of men. which would advance very 
materially the value of your property, would vou not feel that it was 
by reason ol the procurement of that manufactory that your property 

had been increased in value, and 

Mr. Rayner. I would not feel like ooi n o- back to him very much, 
but I would expect him to come bade to me and pay it back. 

Now. there is a wvy important matter here that I think has been 
overlooked. It always struck me as the most impressive point in 
this oroceedmff. On i>a<><> 5 of this report, about the seventh or 
eighth line, you will see that this word "grant" was changed to 



VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 11 

the word " advance " by the Virginia legislature. I want to call 
your attention to the legal aspect of this, because we must consider 
the circumstances connected with the title to the act as passed. This 
is the iournal of the delegates of Virginia : 

On the 24th December, 1790, the bill was introduced in the house of delegates 
of Virginia, granting to the President of the United States the sum of $120,000 
for erecting public buildings on the Potomac River agreeably to the resolutions 
of the last assembly. But the resolution (continues Mr. Rantoul) has been 
not to grant, but to advance $120,000. Accordingly, on the passage of the bill,. 
27th of December, 1700, its title was amended so as to read "The act concern- 
ing an advance of money to the Government of the United States for public 
buildings." 

Of course, we must look to the title of an act to explain what the 
act is, but the word " grant " will imply a donation, while the word 
" advance " implies a loan. 

The whole action thus purports that this money was to be advanced by Vir- 
ginia, and that her phraseology was not inadvertently chosen, but with special 
regard to its significance, appears from the amendment just stated. Indeed, 
it was not probable that Virginia, having for six years contemplated an advance 
of money to be refunded, would, in 1790. toward the close of that year, convert 
the sum promised advanced into a grant. 

Now, in answer to a question that the committee asked, I want to- 
e-all your attention to another fact, and that is this: That the law 
had been passed for the establishment of the public buildings here 
before Maryland made her grant. Looking at page 4, the resolution 
of the general assembly of Maryland is : 

Whereas by a resolution of the general assembly of Virginia, passed on the 
10th day of December, 1789, it was proposed to the genera] assembly of Mary- 
land that the general assembly of Virginia will pass an act for advancing a sum 
of money not less than $120,000 to the use of the General Government, and to 
be applied in such manner as Congress shall direct, toward erecting public build- 
ings, the assembly of Maryland on their part advancing a sum not less than 
three-fifths of the sum advanced by the said general assembly of Virginia ; which 
resolution came so late to the last general assembly of Maryland that it could 
not lie acted upon, and was therefore referred to this present session: and 

Whereas this general assembly doth highly approve of the object of said 
resolution, and is desirous of doing everything required on the part of Maryland 
for carrying the same into effect: on a second reading of said resolution. 

Resolved, That this house doth accede to the proposition contained in said 
resolution of the assembly of Virginia, and will advance to the President of the 
United States, for the purposes mentioned in said resolution, the sum of $72,000, 
payable to his order in three equal yearly payments. 

If you will kindly look at the bottom of page 5, you will see what 
Maryland did. 

Then on page 5 of the report you will find this: 

It should be observed that no inadvertent use of phraseology betrays the gen- 
eral assembly in the above act to use any other words than "to be advanced." 
In the second volume of Seharfs History of Maryland, page 566, it is stated 
that the general assembly of Maryland, to secure the prompt payment of the sum 
advanced, authorized, the treasurer of the "Western Shore (at that early day the 
State bad a ireasurer for the Eastern Shore and another for the Western Shore) 
to sell the "reserved lands to the westward of Fort Cumberland," and also 
"the lands lying in Dorchester County and now in possession of the tribe of 
Choptank Indians, to sell and convey tin' right of this State to LOO acres of land 
at Fori Frederick, in Washington County."' Thus Maryland sold some of her 
ureal coal fields to meet her advance to the United States for the first public 
buildings at the capital. 

II lias been argued that these States were moved to make the advances by 
the advantages which would follow from the location of the capital on the 
Potomac, and il has been also inferred that the advances were a "pecuniary 



12 



VIRGINIA AND M \llVl.AXli CLAIM. 



argument, which influenced the Congress to locate the capital on the Potomac. 

No contemporaneous authority has i n produced in any of the reports as 

l!:,s ll( '''" l " lini1 by this committee, that shows thai the Congress of the United 
stales was made aware of the acti.ni of Virginia of the 10th December, 1789; 
and as that resolution was conditional upon Maryland's action, it is not probable 
that a conditional proposition, not accepted by Maryland, would be communi- 
cated to Congress by Virginia. Maryland did ao1 respond to Virginia until No-, 
vember, 1790. The law locating the capital at Washington was' approved July 
16, 1790 -four months before Maryland agreed i«» Virginia's proposition and six 
months before Virginia Anally confirmed her flrsl proposition to make an ad- 
van< c 

Now. onh ( , m . other reference and I shall conclude. Thai is on 
page 8. I want to say. in passing, in reference to public roads in 
Maryland, that we are expending $5,000,000 for public roads, and one 
of tlif roads is the boulevard from the city of Baltimore to the city 
ol Washington. 1 suppose there is more being expended upon that 
road than upon any other in Maryland. I think the new boulevard 
i- in use now for L5 or 20 miles between Washington and Baltimore. 

Xow. on page 8 : 

( It was not an ordinary loan that Maryland was negotiating with the General 
Government, if it had been, a term of years would have been designated— 

_ I will admit it was not "ordinary " more than in the legal accepta- 
tion of the term— that is. if there had already been indicia of a loan— ' 
And the rate of interest which would accrue, hut it was a generous offering 
from a patriotic State of the Confederacy to the young and distressed Govern- 
ment ot the I nion. whose finances were deranged and wlx.se resources were 

undeveloped, with the implied understanding that the Government of die Un I 

States would reimburse Maryland whenever the for r should recover from its 

financial difficulties and have the ability to do so. In such a transaction it 
1 S, '«: 1 "" '" be dear that the State of Maryland would wait long and patiently 
before she would demand payment of the General Government— 

The first effort that was made was made over seventy years ao-o in 
1842. by the general assembly of Maryland— 

Since the advance itself was not an act of general confidence and patriotic lib- 
erality, it was not for her to obliterate the grateful recollection of the deed bv 
an unkindly or ungracious demand. 

I always in the House of Representatives and since then, planted 
myself upon the proposition that this was an advance bv these States 
to the General Government, and, being an advance, that it is an equi- 
table claim against the Government. 

Now I believe— I am not prepared fully to express an opinion upon 
that— but I believe that if this was the ease of an individual, and 
it was not barred by the statute of limitations, under the circum- 
stances of (his case there wotdd be a right to recover. Von gentle- 
men, members of the bar— and that just occurred to me while sitting 
here— know that an action for money had and received is an equitable 
action, and in a court of common law for an amount of money had 
and received yon can recover money that was an equitable advance 
In other words, yon are not driven into a court of equity under an' 
action for money had and received to recover money had and re- 
ceived. There is an equitable claim against an individual, and some- 
times against the Government of the United States. 

Mr. Sn.\cKi,i:i"oi;i>. I am not familiar with the history of the loca- 
tion of the capital, and without glancing at it further, can you tell 
the committee whether or not at the time of the location there were 
offers of various States and communities of different sums in the 



VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 13 

way of donations or advances in the event the capital should be lo- 
cated in their midst? Germantown, for instance. 

Mr. Rayner. I am not sufficiently familiar, but in looking over 
the proceedings I did not find that there were any offers made, and I 
do not think there were. 

Mr. Kitchin. I think there was an offer from Pennsylvania, if 
they would locate it at Germantown. But the answer to this is that 
the act of the Virginia legislature making this advance was not passed 
until twelve months after the bill had passed Congress and had been 
signed, locating the capital on the Potomac River, The capital had 
been located before Virginia ever passed the act making this advance. 

Mr. Rayner. I find this on page •-!<): 

Mr. Morris said the question was net understood and begun his explanations. 
He said he bad often wished to explain himself on the subject of the residence, 
but was always prevented. That Pennsylvania was averse to the Susquehanna 
and would give .$100,000 to place it at Germantown. 

The Chairman. What explanation have yon to make of what the 
President means on page 8? It is the part where he says that a part 
of it was not expended for the purpose that was intended. lie asks: 

In what manner would it be proper to stale the accounts with the States of 
Virginia and Maryland, they having advanced money which has not been all 
expended on the objects for which it was appropriated'.' 

How much of this money was expended for building the capital 
and what has become of the other money? 

Mr. Rayner. It is not the balance that is spoken of. It says: 

From this clause there is a clear inference that President Washington re- 
garded this money as an advance, rendering necessary an account of it to be 
kept with those States. If it was a grant, gift, or donation, why keep an 
account with the States? But if it was an advance for a specific object, it 
was necessary to show that the money advanced for public buildings had not 
been expended on streets and other improvements. 

In what manner, asked the President, would it be proper to state 
the accounts with the States of Virginia and Maryland, they having 
advanced the money? What is the use of keeping an account if they 
simply made a gift? In my judgment, I think the States expected 
this money to be paid back, and vve are waiting for the time when the 
Government will pay it back. 

Mr. Tirrell. How much was advanced by the State of Maryland? 

Mr. Rayner. Seventy-two thousand dollars; in 18-12 we started. 

I should think the burden of proof would be on the Government to 
show it Avas a donation. Prima facie, it is an advance. 

Mr. Mouser. The question of the location of the capital had been 
fully and finally settled before this advance was made. 

Mr. Rayner. Six months before. 

Mr. Mouser. It could not be charged that that was the motive? 

Mr. Rayner. No; absolutely not. Because the resolution of the 
State of Maryland was not passed until December, and the location 
of the capital had been made in July. 

Mr. Waldo. Virginia had offered a hundred thousand pounds if it 
was located at Williamsburg. 

Mr. Rayner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kitchin. With reference to the benefits that Virginia has got 
which you have referred to 

Mr. Rayner. I would like somebody to point out what those bene- 
fits are. Lots of farms within 7 miles of the capital are selling for 



14 VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 

$30 an acre The only advantage that Maryland has received is 
property is about twice as high in Washington as property in Bal- 
timore. We have received no benefits. It has been an absolute 
injury. 

The Chairman. I would like to state that if you were to move out 
into my country and have your railroad fare to Washington to pay, 
as we have to do and you have to do, you would find that it is a very 
great advantage to live in Maryland. 

Mr. Rayner. We arc spending $.\000,000 for these public roads. 
all for the benefit of Washington. The boulevard will not benefit us. 
It is building up the property all about Washington. I have driven 
on that boulevard for 15 miles, and it is building up a country that 
before that was a desert. I never saw anything like it. All the 
property out here is being improved,, and we have not derived a 
particle of benefit from it. so far as the city of Baltimore is con- 
cerned. 

Mr. Shackleford. I see Philadelphia's proposition is she would 
loan the Government $100,000 if it was located at Philadelphia. I 
see some reference to it here in Mr. Maclay's journal. It says: " Mr. 
Langdon now moved a reconsideration to strike out the loan of the 
$100,000." It seems some of them offered to donate $100,000, prob- 
ably Germantown, and it looks as if Philadelphia offered to loan. I 
do not know what the offer of Virginia was; it must have been for 
the purpose of superinducing a better offer. 

Mr. Carlin. The capital was finally located by a deal between 
Pennsylvania and Virginia and Maryland, whereby Pennsylvania, 
in the short turn, shall get the capital for ten years, and the Potomac 
get it for the balance of time. It was located there for ten years 
while these buildings were being constructed. 

Mr. Tirrell. Did Congress take any action at any time in regard 
to this alleged advance or loan? 

Mr. Carlin. No, sir; not at all. But the President of the United 
States took the cash. That is the record we have of it. 

Mr. Rayner. You must all realize that even if Congress did not 
take any action, this thing has been up for time immemorial, and 
the principal contention has been about the interest, I was in the 
Fifty-third Congress, or along there, and the controversy there was 
about the interest. You will find a long discussion there about the 
payment of interest. We would not have had very much difficulty 
if we had agreed to take the amount without interest at that time. 

Mr. Carlin. This bill does not provide for any interest. It simply 
provides for the payment of the principal sum. The interest would 
amount to something over a million dollars. 

Mr. Waldo. Is not there anything in the debates of Congress at or 
about the time this money was advanced in regard to this money? 

Mi-. Carlin. Not a word, so far as we have been able to find. 

Mr. Waldo. Or as to the acceptance of the money, or what they 
were going to do with it? 

Mr. Carlin. There have been about 10 reports made by the various 
committees of Congress, and I do not find anything with reference to 
this money in Congress. 

Mr. Waldo. There must have been some action on the part of Con- 
gress on the location of the capital. 

Mr. Carlin. Oh, yes. 



VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 15 

Air. Waldo. At that time wasn't there anything said about this 
action of Maryland and Virginia ? 

Mr. Carlin. Not a thing. There was about Germantown and 
Philadelphia, but not about this. 

Mr. Kitchin. Is there anything in the Treasury Department, or 
in the records of the treasury department of the State of Virginia or 
the State of Maryland, showing that they kept this as an account 
against the Government ( 

Mr. Carlin. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Kitchin. I mean immediately afterwards? 

Mr. Carlin. Yes. sir; the record shows, and shows the method of 
payment of the money. The Government got it in quarterly pay- 
ments, and it shows who received it. 

Mr. Waldo. How long has the Government kept that as an account 
due the State of Maryland '. 

Mr. Carlin. She has kept it ever since she got*it. 

Mr. Waldo. Do the Treasury books show an open account there ( 

Mr. Carlin. I do not know. The books of Virginia show it. and I 
am inclined to think the books of the Treasury Department will show 
it. I do not think I can give you that information, because the com- 
mittee in signing the minority report referred to the fact that this 
account showed upon the government ledger and also showed that 
there were other accounts there, and they took the ground that it was 
a gift and not a loan. Nobody has ever doubted the fact that the 
money was paid. 

Mr. Shackleford. Mr. Washington made a suggestion, or made a 
query, as to how it would be well to open up an account on the books, 
which would imply that up to that time there were no accounts. 

Mr. Carlin. The President asked the method of stating the account. 

Mr. MoirsER. Do the journals of the legislature of Virginia show 
for what specific purpose this advance was made? 

Mr. Carlin. Yes; the journals of both States show that. 

Mr. Mofser. What was it to be used for? 

Mr. Carlin. For public buildings. President Washington three 
years afterwards seems to have discovered that although the Govern- 
ment got the money they had actually expended some of it for some 
other purpose, and he then asked how the accounts should be stated, 
because he stated the money had been used, or some of it, for some 
other purpose. This is a question of record ; it does not have to rest 
upon the recollection of anybody. There is a record for every part of 
this transaction as far as records were kept in those days, showing 
first that the money was gotten, that the money was expended, and 
has never been paid. 

The Chairman. Who received it? 

Mr. Carlin. The President of the United States. It was paid to 
the order of the President of the United States. The money was 
actually paid into the hands of the President of the United States. 
If then is any reason in the mind of any gentleman here that occurs 
to him why this claim should not be paid, who has a question lie wants 
to ask about it, I would like to answer it, for the reason that no good 
reason has ever been given by anybody up to this time. 

Mr. Waldo. I suppose two questions will arise. In the first place,, 
whether this mone}' was really for the purpose of getting the location 
of the capital upon the banks of the Potomac. If it was, then I sup- 



16 VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 

pose they would be in the -nine position as cities in the West that pay 
a large advance to get a big manufacturing establishment. 

Mr. Carlin. I don't think there is the slightest doubt that one of 
the inducements of the loan —as this record says. Philadelphia offered 
to loan the money it' the capital was located there. The capital of 
those days was not such a thing as it is now. and I do not believe any 
man living then ever contemplated such a thing as we have to-day. I 
believe one inducement Virginia had in making the advance was the 
location of the capital, but she did not look upon it as a aifi. 

Mr. Mouser. But had the capital been located before the advance 
was made i 

Mr. Carlin. Yes; but the resolution was offered before. 

Mr. Waldo. General Washington was a resident of Virginia, and 
he was probably able to look ahead and say to Congress that if the 
capita] was locate'! there his State would advance 

Mr. Carlin. Do *Vou think anybody could say what a state 
legislature would do '. 

Mr. Waldo. The one other question is. Whether there are not many 
other States that have claims that date hack to about that time, per- 
haps not exactly of this nature, hut somewhat of this nature, which 
will at once arise and come before this committee if weshow a disposi- 
tion to pay claims that are as old as 1790; and if so. whether this 
committee ought not to take that position — that is, the question as to 
whether claims of States against the Government as old as this ought 
to be taken up? 

Mr. Carlin. Is it the impression that the Government should take 
advantage of its own delay? 

Mr. Waldo. Not at all; but as a general proposition; because if we 
report this claim favorably we are putting this committee and Con- 
gress, if it acts favorably upon it. in the position of saying that any 
claims for advances paid for other purposes — for Indian wars or for 
any other necessary national purpose — in 1790 shall now be taken up 
and considered favorably if such advance shall be proved to have 
been made. 

Mr. Carlin. Tins is the claim of a sovereign State. I doubt if 
there is any such other one in existence or any similar case in exist- 
ence. If there be, they have never been asserted. This claim has been 
asserted for over fifty years. 

Mr. Rayner. There was no surplus at all in the Treasury of the 
United States until about 1836. Eighteen hundred and thirty-six 
was the first time there was any surplus in the Treasury at all. My 
recollection from reading is that that was followed by the panic of 
1836, and there was no surplus in the Treasury until 1840, and imme- 
diately there was a surplus in the Treasury, Virginia and Maryland 
made their demands. 

There is one point here I think is answered upon page 7. the first 
paragraph : 

In relation to this measure Mr. Maclay raised his warning voice against 
yielding the Susquehanna, intimating that at t ho next session of Congress the 
sent of government would be fixed on the Potomac. 

That was before any advance was made. 

And at the next session, through an arrangement between Mr. Hamilton and 
certain Members from Virginia and Pennsylvania, the funding bill was passed, 
and also the bill fixing the permanent seat of government in the District of 



VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 17 

Columbia. It does not certainly appear from the journal of Mr. Maclay that 
General Washington, as has been elsewhere intimated, interposed his influence 
in favor of the Potomac while the bill was pending before the First Congress ; 
but it is not improbable that he expressed a preference for its location on the 
Potomac during the second session. Mr. Madison, however, appears to have 
been decided in favor of its location on the Potomac before General Washing- 
ton was inaugurated. 

Then, when the President was inaugurated, you Avill find this sig- 
nificant statement that has been referred to in his letter addressed to 
his commissioners of the federal district, written from Philadelphia 
in 1 7L>3, in which he asks in what manner would it be proper to state 
the account of the States of Virginia and Maryland. Was there any- 
body but thought and considered it an advance? Pie was not stat- 
ing the account of the Federal Government as to its expenditures, but 
the accounts of the States of Maryland and Virginia. 

Mr. Waldo. Is not this what General Washington meant when he 
made that statement : Virginia and Maryland had agreed to advance, 
one $72,000 and the other $120,000, to erect public buildings. They 
had advanced the money, but General Washington had not used all 
of it for the purposes for which those two States advanced the 
money. Now, was not what General Washington meant to inquire 
whether that surplus, which was not used according to the agree- 
ment with the States, should not then be returned to the two States? 

Mr. Carlin. Not at all. The language itself implies that all of it 
was used, but not all used for that purpose. 

Mr. Waldo. Did not he mean that the account should be stated 
showing that the Government owed Maryland and Virginia what- 
ever of this amount they had not used for the purpose agreed upon? 
That, it seems to me, is what he meant. 

Mr. Ratner. You see. that would change the whole nature of the 
transaction. That would only strengthen our position. That would 
make a conditional state of things. If it was a gift, it was an abso- 
lute gift. If it was an advance, it would have to be returned if it 
was not appropriated for the objects it was designed for. 

Mr. Mouser. Might it not have been a gift for a specific purpose? 

Mr. Rayner. It does not carry the idea of a gift at all. I do not 
think there is anything in that. You may look in vain for anything 
to show it was a gift. 

The Chairman. Have you any receipts showing who received this 
money ? 

Mr. Rayner. Yes; the record shows that the checks were drawn to 
George Washington. 

The Chairman. Did he sign as President? 

Mr. Rayner. They were made payable to him as President of the 
United States. 

The Chairman. Might this not be a legitimate claim against the 
estate of George Washington? If so, there is a matter now coming 
before this committee asking that we reimburse the heirs of George 
Washington for the value of land over which Washington was per- 
mitted to locate land warrants under the laws of the State of Vir- 
ginia, and he did locate them in the Miami Valley of Ohio. This land 
to-day is worth a hundred dollars per acre, and now the heirs are 
coming in and requesting, because these lands afterwards by the 

70557— va & md— 09 2 



18 VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 

State of Virginia were ceded to the General Government and the 
General Government issued other land warrants and other land war- 
rants were located on the same lands and taken by other parties and 
patents issued, thai now the heirs ought to be permitted to enjoy this 
benefit. And if so. there will be due the heirs of George Washington 
at least $300,000. 

Mr. Carlin. We are willing to let that be treated as an offset 
against the interest of this claim, which we are not claiming. 

Mr. Shackleford. It seems to me that it is not clear here, and it 
seems to me that it could be made clearer than it is. Undoubtedly 
the State of Virginia and the State of Maryland undertook to super- 
induce the location of the capital on the Potomac by proposing a 
gift or a loan — which? 

Mr. Kitchin. I do not think there is a doubt but that it was an 
advance and not a gift, and now the only trouble is to show that the 
money was actually used by the Government, and then T think the 
only thing is the age of the claim. 

Mr. Daniel. We have a fixed principle of law on the subject, 
the name of it is the common law. Sovereigns do not contemplate 
time as having any bearing upon their obligations. Thev themselves 
live forever. This government has lived so far, and it is likely to live 
in the contemplation of man; therefore governments are not like indi- 
viduals, who die. The government lives forever. That is in title, a 
perpetual unity, unless we have some revolution according to a fash- 
ion which has instituted itself — and we have an impression Ave have 
had a disturbance of that sort. But the government lives forever. 
That is its decree as to itself, and that is the accepted version of the 
State. It is so with all sovereigns. You can not apply any rule that 
you might over individual relations to the transactions of a govern- 
ment. And there is one point in this case that no man can answer. 
It would make no difference if Washington had said this was a gift. 
He had no right to say it. He was not the one to interpret contracts. 
The contract must interpret itself, and the words of a contract prevail 
over any outside testimony. What was their contract ? The contract 
of Virginia was to advance this money, and that is the end of it. The 
legislature can not testify against what it did. It is what it did that 
speaks. It is the act, and that is all of the case. If you consider 
" advance " to amount to something it does not mean in the dictionary, 
law. or otherwise, you can fritter the claim away. You can have a 
do/en suggestions as to what were its motives, but that does not make 
any difference. There is what it did, and the Government has pre- 
served a memorial of it, and it acknowledges the fact, and if it was 
in a court the plea would be overruled and judgment entered for the 
plaintiff. 

Mr. Waldo. There is no question about that, unless it was outlawed. 

The Chairman. The question is whether, if the State of Virginia 
sleeps on its rights for fifty years, and then brings a claim of this kind 
to Congress and asks to have it paid, and a committee of Congress 
takes it up and considers the matter of payment, if we do it in one 

case, ought we not to do it in all that stand upon the same basis 

Mr. Ravner. This claim was brought fifty years ago. 

The Chairman. But that was fifty years after the money was paid 
over before any claim was made against the Government. It is not 
the proper thing for an individual to let whatever indebtedness may 



VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND CLAIM. 19 

be due to him run until the debtor dies and put it on the heirs fifty or 
one hundred years afterwards to pay the indebtedness which the 
debtor should have paid. 

Mr. Carlin. But the State of Virginia did not do it. A counter- 
claim was made as soon as the Government had means to pay the 
claim. 

The Chairman. We would be glad to have you present anything 
else you wish to hereafter. 

Mr. Carlin. We hope that will not be necessary. We hope to 
have a report, and a favorable report. 

The Chairman. In case we should decide to report adversely, 
would you prefer that we should make an adverse report to our 
making no report? 

Mr. Carlin. We would not. 

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned.) 



LIBRARY OF CONGRES 

M 

ww« 874 605 3 ^ 



